Which Presidential candidat is more likely to start WWIII?

Question

ok... the obvious choice would be McCain but i would like some detail i don't belive obama would not lead us there either, i just want some opinions and well...ansers thanks

Answer 1

MCCAIN no doubt  

Answer 2

Obama would be. But think of it this way, it wouldn't even be up to us.  If Israel sees that Obama is gonna win, they know that they can't count on the US to back them up anymore at least not Militarily (not to the extent that would be needed)  Diplomacy works it does, but God there is a point when Diplomacy will not work.  

Some people simply do not want us to exist, face it, live with it, come to terms and live in reality - there are people that will hate us NO MATTER WHAT.  I've traveled to many countries and realize how starkly different cultures are and I know some of their unwavering opinion of US ingrained for generations ( ido my part to change those opinions one person at a time).  We have to defend ourselves at times.  I'm ranting.  But to get back to your question.  Israel might attack Iran if they see (in their eyes) a weak president might get elected (obama), that is the closest threat to WWIII we have right now

As for "facts"  it's impossible to give facts on who would be more likely to start a global war.  You can site tendencies and voting records, but really both could potentially start it purposefully or unwittingly. To think we can avoid war forever is a Romantic way of thought, it's not reality unfortunately.  Since documented time we have, all of, taken each others lives.

Answer 3

McCain because he would not be afarid to defend this great nation obama would jsut surrender...

Answer 4

I don't believe that either of them will be likely to start a war but if a war is started Obama will handle the situation better...

Answer 5

I think Russia's Putin is more likely to do that.

I realize that there are many anti-Bushers around although he did his duty to protect our country and he mobilized the U.S. to actually counter terrorism.  I would like to believe that Obama would also act to protect our country if attacked and take measures to minimze the risk of being further attacked.

From that standpoint, I don't see much difference between the two.  I know the rhetoric flies easily into saying stuff like, "look, we never should have gone there in the first place and I did not support that effort from day one" but is that another way of saying that (any Democrat) would not have acted to protect our country?  I think right now it's all smoke and mirrors just to point fingers and find a scape goat.  There is no scape goat to find.  

Both candidates and partiies will act to do what needs to be done and both will find that the machine that is already in place is not that easy to change.

Answer 6

Obama would be more likely to do that. Any democrat would be good at causing a problem such as that. All democrats do are cause problems. They are good for NOTHING !  

Answer 7

it's none of the above. nobody wants to start a war. but if comes to that then some action has to be taken. we don't just stand there and do nothing.

Answer 8

McCain would lead us to WWIII, but only because he would defend our country, our allies, whereas Obama would surrender to avoid that "nasty confrontation".

Answer 9

What about a civil war with this pick !

Can we have a third party please !!!!!